Historically propaganda use to mean the spreading of information in support of a cause. It's not so important whether the information is true or false or if the cause is just or not. Didn't necessarily mean distorting or falsify information and governments would often call certain departments The Department for Propaganda as a short hand for what today might be something like the Department of Information or Office for National Statistics etc. until it became a ugly word by certain no no governments.
Hi Mr Terry In answer to your question i think you have to think about these contextually. Politically i think appeal to fear as been the most effective as it taps into what i believe is this almost primative, unconscious, instinctual fear that i define as the human condition in our relationship between our human and societial self that is in conflict between two distinctive and confrontual forces that perscribe as the Human Other, which is seen as guiding, mutual and good force (i.e. my neighbour who i known for year, shares the same language, values, etc) and the Stranger, which is seen as a mysterious, hostile, uncertain and perceived as a unwanted force (i.e. a poor immigrant, doesnt known my language, doesnt assimilate to my perserved belief values...the setrotypical urgh, immigrant took uh jobs attitude). I dont think cult of personalities are actually that impactful as i think most people that live under such regimes can see through the theatre but choose to carry on. Read up the philosophy called Hypernormalisation by a soviet academic during the dying days of Soviet Union to get me. And i think culturally things like the beauty one with influencers definitely feeds into my daily life and on a more introspective level where i am making shallow comparions with how great their lives are, how hot their are, how great their bodies are thinking they have a perfect life and demeaning my own when in reality i probs dont know how sad and empty their lives can be. Sorry for a long answer! Believe it or not my phone decided to die when wrote this and then i lost it the second time. So frustrating aha.
There was no gaslighting in the original video, you’re probably misremembering. I watch the og video from start to finish and there was no gaslighting. Nothing was skipped. Terry added absolutely everything in the video. Your just going crazy
The majority of these are still being used. Imagine a class president telling you how there's going to be twice as much candy in the vending machines, and lunches that are 2×as long. That seems to be today's politics.
A very recent example of using euphemisms was exposed by the journalistic outlet "The Intercept". They examined over a thousand articles written between Oct. 7th and Nov. 24th that were written by massive U.S. papers like The NY Times, Washington Post, and The LA Times. They compared the language used in the articles that reported on death tolls among Palestinians and Israelis. To keep this short, one example was the number of times the words "slaughter" and "massacre" were used to describe the killings from the Oct. 7th terror attack and the ongoing killings of Palestinians to this very minute. In reference to Israeli death tolls from the Hamas led Oct. 7th terror attack, (currently ~1,200 people with a little less than half being civilians), the words were used a combined total of 180 times. The same words were used a combined total of 5 times when referring the death toll of Palestinians by the Israeli military (currently 30,000+ people with around 90% being civilians). To people who keep up with media bias, it isn't a surprise to learn that some of the biggest outlets in the US are heavily biased towards Israel, but it may be news to someone reading this.
According to Wikipedia the death toll on Oct 7th was 1,139 with 815 being civillians so that over 66% not less than 50% like you said and also 251 hostages taken. Also hamas the governing body of palestine has said they use human shields and that despite all the tunnels they built to protect hamas they didn't build bomb shelters that civillians could use, and have ordered citizens to stay in their houses when the idf has warned them of strikes. Also I don't think that's a fair point because while it makes the hamas attack sound more violent it kinda was people breaking in houses killing families with aks and rocketing civillian structures and committing other horrible things , compared to Israel struck a hospital, school, or refugee camp. I see alot of the ladder in the news alot and it clearly isn't to make Israel look good.
@@dobber43 My info may have been out of date, so that puts the ratio of civilian to military deaths at 2:1. There is another factor though that rarely gets mentioned when referring to Israeli civilian deaths from Oct. 7th. Every Israeli citizen has to serve in the IDF in their adulthood, with women expected to serve 2 years and men expected to serve just short of 3 years at minimum. The gun laws are stricter there than in the US, but it's more common for the citizens that live near the Gaza border to be armed. I think that a capable, trained IDF soldier turned citizen should not be compared to the Israeli children and elderly who are incapable of self defense. On the other hand the vast majority of Palestinian adults are not part of any military, but the Israeli state officially classifies any male over the age of 18 as a "military target". This is how they claim the civilian death toll in Gaza is only in the 60%-70% range, and not the internationally agreed upon percentage in the 90% range. Regardless of all of this, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians has only been ramped up in recent months. The numbers of expected deaths due to being shot or blown up, crushed under rubble, lack of medical care, starvation, etc. is estimated to be around 186,000 according to a study by The Lancet released around a month ago. This will be remembered as one of the darkest time periods in modern history when all of this is over.
The British guy does have a name. It's John Bull. Also a fun name to know, the Gish Gallop was named after one specific lying, money hungry fundamentalist creationist Christian, Duane Gish. He specifically focused on asking blithe, simple-seeming scientific questions that required nuance, ten research papers, and a degree to answer. And demanded all the answers in minutes and exhaustively so if anything was missed he could proclaim victory.
he wasnt a fundamentalist christian if he was money hungry. the bible forbids loving money. please remove the christian part as one stupid pos “christian” doesnt represent the other 2.5 billion christians❤
3:20 a big lie is more like a lie that is simple to say but is so complex to refute from so many angles, offense against it is uncoordinated and scattered
I'm intrigued by Paint Explainer's definition of "Gish Gallop." I'd always understood the technique to work more like the Firehose of Falsehood: overloading the opponent with dubious claims they simply don't have time to respond to, thus making the unaddressed claims seem more factual ("He didn't respond to X, so it must be true" rather than the reality of "He didn't respond to X because he was so busy with A-W")
I think the firehose one is more framed from the medias position. It’s just about having those claims all floating around about someone to the point where someone would say “there’s no way all of this stuff they’re saying is false some of these have got to be true”
My understanding of accidentally using this technique without realising it existed is that the idea is to overwhelm the other party with so many questions that are considered fairly simple that there response cant be properly coordinated (you can also advance this to ask questions were the answers will appear contradictory to the answers of previous questions) , this obviously leads to the other parties response being full of inaccuracies and poor wording which allows you to then pick apart their response thus destroying their credibility in the eyes of other people while also improving the perception that you are credible. At this point the more the person try’s to argue back the deeper hole they create for themselves however when they do concede defeat it also digs them a deeper hole. Effectively its a trap thats easy to fall into and impossible to escape once your caught in it, i found it a very effective technique when i was in school and teachers would attempt to make an example of me.
The British guy at 7:30 is John Bull he is used as t like the male version of Britannia who represents the nation personified. In WW2 the more common face was Lord Kitchener with his "Your country needs you" posters (basically our version of Uncle Sam's we want you)
Mr Terry are you going to watch the Greek Philosophers in 5 Minutes Video that The Painted Explainer also had done you kinda missed that one would love your Academic insight on that video
But I also agree with the idea that if you only focus on one party's guilt, you exonerate the others. How do you express that WITHOUT it being labeled whataboutism? What's the difference between that and just calling out hypocrisy?
i think pointing out hypocrisy doesn't have to use whataboutism, for example, you could use sarcasm, when a convicted thief says that stealing are bad, you could use sarcasm like "that's rich coming from you", or "wow, you have such a good moral".
The thing is that whataboutism is a technique of deliberately avoiding the debate. Imo, it isn't fallacious if the initial argument is inherently used as comparison, let's say the topic is who should be elected and oparty X says the party Y is bad because they did something bad, saying they are better alternative, while party X also does the same thing. In that case party X argument is fallacious, because it involves comparison but only examines one side and just implies the other side is better. Or, from recent and controversial example of Israel-Palestine/Hamas war: "What Hamas is doing is bad.... that's why you should support Israel (refuses to look at what Israel is doing as well) "What Israel is doing is bad... that's why you should support Palestine" (again, refuses to look what Palestine side is doing) In both cases whataboutism would be fallacious IF the argument wasn't the attempt to show one side as better than the other. Comparison REQUIRES to look at all compared things to asses which one is better.
19:20 Agreed, context IS important but especially politicians often use this if they have said something stupid/horrible that "it was taken out of context" Like one time we had a big conversation about how much control employers should have to their employees private lives, for example e-mails. This was especially in relation to a certain law which was in the procedings at the time, which if passed would greatly increase employers rights and diminish employees rights. Well, there was this not-so-bright politician who was very strong proponent of said pending law said that "Employer should have even the right to strip their employee naked, if neccessary" Well, needless to say papers had a field with this but the politician in question and some experts trying play spin doctors tried to dampen the comment by saying that "it was taken out of context" So yeah, sometimes "taken out of context" can be used as a very poor defence tactics when you realize you have shot yaself in the leg (or have arrow in the knee), but it rarely works as people can see your BS. Otherwise usually religions or strong ideologies use this as some intrepretation is "taken out of context" even if it is really a question of different POV...
When i was teaching in a prison, I liked to use the improper punctuation (the thing he talked about in the Half-Truths section) when explaining to students why they really should be careful cussing in class. There is a big difference between a grown-@$$ man and what happens when you move that hyphen a word over...
The UK WW1 Poster. There is a famous one which i think either pre dates or post dates the US WW1 one. It was a image of UK Lord Kitchener (unusual name i know) which has his image and saying "WANTS YOU". There is a bit of a Mandela affect though where people think it says "Your country needs you" which admittedly sounds a lot more inspiring and snazzy but i believe was never done in circulation. Greetings from the UK 🇬🇧
So a gish gallop isn't just about sounding smart, there's a specific tactic to it. The idea is you make dozens of false claims in a short presentation, each of which, the other guy could spend an hour unpacking why it's wrong. The idea is, he wastes all his time and the audience's patience debunking one claim, leaving the rest on the table unaddressed. His audience doesn't remember the long explanation why that point is wrong, they remember all the short quippy claims that the other guy never even talked about. Must be because he knew it was right.
Some of my family members, who were my role models when growing up, have become active propaganda consumers. It really hurts to see them falling for childish fallacies
Name me a minority or vice that _hasn't_ been scapegoated, I think it'd be quicker. Most of the worst acts in human history boil down to "they got in a rich person's way."
They missed the "dead cat" strategy. That is to say something shocking to distract from something more consequential. (Attributed to Boris Johnson's political strategist Lynton Crosby). In British politics I have also seen phony protestors using glitter (easy to clean off) instead of coloured dust, in mockery of the just stop oil protestors. (Used at former chancellor George Osborne's wedding with smiles all around. Then used on Labour leader Kier Starmer's conference speach, with a prepared rebuttal.) Somebody dared to throw glitter at the bride and groom on their wedding day and it was seen as shocking!
1) Cult of personality: I thought of Stalin instantly as the first example. How the famous picture of young Stalin was altered or his paintings or photographs included happy laughing children and beautiful nature. 2) Scapegoats: Witch trials, supposed witches were blamed for anything from unrequited love, diseases, famine to making deals with the devil and cursing people with misfortune. And currently, China, Africa and India for climate change; why us in [European or North American nation] have to do anything when China and India are the "biggest" polluters or African countries are "overpopulating" the world.
Please think about doing the new PragerU "Was Hitler Right-Wing?" video. The video is making the case that Hitler's "National Socialism" is actually "Socialist", and therefore Hitler was not "Right-Wing". Please provide the much needed context to this video.
The far right & far left are pretty much the same as in hyper authoritarianism-both sides think thier brand is the better one but we've seen how they've both played out with Hitler/Mussollini being more right wing authoritarian while Stalin/Lenin were left wing authoritarian. Disgust was probably the main driving force & foundation of both as well
"Did he just skip Gaslighting or am I tripping?" No, you're tripping. Gaslighting isn't even up there, silly. What, can't you read? Everyone can see Gaslighting isn't there, so why don't you just stop talking about it. Gaslighting isn't even a word. (/s just in case, lol)
NGL, when they had the silhouette of a person wearing a cape for 'cult of personality', my first thought wasn't even real-world individuals. I was immediately thinking, "Is HE lore from StarvHarv a cult of personality?" Edit: I wondered if them skipping gaslighting was going to connect to a later example of gaslighting by using the "I didn't skip it" argument to showcase how gaslighting works.
Whataboutism isn't it's own category. There is validity to "what about". "Why are you telling me to do X when you don't do X" is a valid criticism of an argument. If you don't follow your own advice, it often means the advise is flawed, or the advice has a cost to it that you aren't stating which you aren't willing to state. To use the (bad) example he gave there - if someone overweight tells you to exercise and doesn't exercise themselves it could be that 1. It doesn't work (this is partially true - exercise without a reasonable diet doesn't work). 2. It has a cost they aren't willing to pay that is worth acknowledging (starting exercise is difficult because your body releases fatigue chemicals to discourage use of resources after it has become accustomed to not using them, and maintaining a routine is difficult with a schedule). Or 3. They have specific circumstances that may not apply to you but that circumstance is worth knowing (in my case, I have arthritis and inflamation in two different parts of my foot that make me dangerously lose balance if I overdo walking, so I could tell you to walk for exercise but I can't do so myself). These are all things that can come of interrogating the situation in the form of "what about". We shouldn't automatically dismiss any "what about". Where it becomes a problem is when it's part of another technique. "You tay this candidate is bad because X but what about this past President who did X too?" is where this entered the public conscience in 2016. And at face value it IS valid - if you don't think X is acceptable now, why was it acceptable 4 years ago needs answering to ensure X is not just an unstated assumption. Politics are notorious for criticisms being used for short term mudslinging while not actually being distinguishing factors between the candidates. What made "whataboutism" into a problem was that it was being used as a method of transferrence. In 2016 when it was so prominent, it was transferring the problems of Obama onto Clinton by the irrelevant association of being the same party and serving under his administration. Like a lot of these, you need to be aware of the possibility the other person is trying to deceive you with the method, but that doesn't mean you dismiss them out of hand. You need to make sure the question isn't valid before you dismiss them. And the quickest way to do that is to answer them honestly. If they don't respond in good faith, then you dismiss them.
My favorite out of context quote is Ronald Reagan, who said, "I'm from the government, and im here to help." Most people drop that the full quote is, "The 9 most terrifying words in the english language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
4:15 Cognitive dissonace is rather somethig that happens if the core fo your worldview shatters and you have to construct a new one like for example from christian to atheist. However, people will try to do and find ANYTHING to keep their status quo worldview. i.e. not having to ever face cognitive dissonance...
Cult of personality can be anyone, really. Obviously dictators often do this (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Politicians in democracies do this as well, building an intensely loyal following (e.g. Modi, Trum). However, not all CoPs are started by the leader. Some are postumous as well. For example, JFK has this venerable, heroic image despite being a very flawed leader.
Half truth or perhaps another seems really common in advertising. Terms like “a dollar a month” “only x per y” etc. Instead of being totally up front and saying the actual full price one pays at a time. Ya technically it’s only whatever small amount per month or whatever. Except on checkout it’s like 100.00+. I hate that crap, just tell me the full pay now number. Demonize the enemy and guilt by association are so prevalent. For example many Harry potter youtube channels or people buying or streaming the games being attacked n slandered just cause of JKs personal opinions, regardless of the beliefs and opinions of the youtuber and streamer etc who is a fan of the franchise / universe. There’s loads of actors n such I hate cause of their personal opinions but I still enjoy the films and series they perform in. Even if the creator is a piece of crap, it doesn’t mean the creation is bad. Or that it’s wrong to enjoy it.
All 4 of them have in equal amounts. Woke used to be this big scary thing that everyone was scared of. “The woke mob is coming to indoctrinate your children!” And everyone panicked. Now it’s the equivalent of commie in Cold War USA.
It’s an interesting video. I see aspects of some of these on both sides of our political spectrum, but I see the vast majority applied by the democrat party. I didn’t notice that before. Thank you.
What is the most common form of propaganda that we've seen in history?
@MrTerry all
repeat a lie forcefully and long enough and you will change the world.
Historically propaganda use to mean the spreading of information in support of a cause. It's not so important whether the information is true or false or if the cause is just or not. Didn't necessarily mean distorting or falsify information and governments would often call certain departments The Department for Propaganda as a short hand for what today might be something like the Department of Information or Office for National Statistics etc. until it became a ugly word by certain no no governments.
Appealing to religion
Hi Mr Terry
In answer to your question i think you have to think about these contextually.
Politically i think appeal to fear as been the most effective as it taps into what i believe is this almost primative, unconscious, instinctual fear that i define as the human condition in our relationship between our human and societial self that is in conflict between two distinctive and confrontual forces that perscribe as the Human Other, which is seen as guiding, mutual and good force (i.e. my neighbour who i known for year, shares the same language, values, etc) and the Stranger, which is seen as a mysterious, hostile, uncertain and perceived as a unwanted force (i.e. a poor immigrant, doesnt known my language, doesnt assimilate to my perserved belief values...the setrotypical urgh, immigrant took uh jobs attitude). I dont think cult of personalities are actually that impactful as i think most people that live under such regimes can see through the theatre but choose to carry on. Read up the philosophy called Hypernormalisation by a soviet academic during the dying days of Soviet Union to get me.
And i think culturally things like the beauty one with influencers definitely feeds into my daily life and on a more introspective level where i am making shallow comparions with how great their lives are, how hot their are, how great their bodies are thinking they have a perfect life and demeaning my own when in reality i probs dont know how sad and empty their lives can be.
Sorry for a long answer! Believe it or not my phone decided to die when wrote this and then i lost it the second time. So frustrating aha.
Skipping gaslighting was brilliant.
What are you talking about
There was no gaslighting in the original video, you’re probably misremembering. I watch the og video from start to finish and there was no gaslighting. Nothing was skipped. Terry added absolutely everything in the video. Your just going crazy
@@insertsupacoolnamei dont think he's referring to terry but the original video, you could see it just before gish gallop but it was not explained
@@purptube678 It's wasn't there, you're just going crazy
@@unavailableunlol i feel dumb now
Skipping gaslighting is hilarious. And you went back and said “am I trippin?” Too good. 🤣
What are you talking about? He didn't skip it.
Definitely considered that they might go back and say oh no we covered that =)
Putting the sponsor after “information overload” was a stroke of genius.
The majority of these are still being used. Imagine a class president telling you how there's going to be twice as much candy in the vending machines, and lunches that are 2×as long. That seems to be today's politics.
i mean that’s a pretty obvious observation. telling people what they want to hear essentially
Like to racist people telling them to built that wall!
Skipping Gaslighting was brilliant, you're getting gaslit that it's not there
A very recent example of using euphemisms was exposed by the journalistic outlet "The Intercept". They examined over a thousand articles written between Oct. 7th and Nov. 24th that were written by massive U.S. papers like The NY Times, Washington Post, and The LA Times. They compared the language used in the articles that reported on death tolls among Palestinians and Israelis. To keep this short, one example was the number of times the words "slaughter" and "massacre" were used to describe the killings from the Oct. 7th terror attack and the ongoing killings of Palestinians to this very minute. In reference to Israeli death tolls from the Hamas led Oct. 7th terror attack, (currently ~1,200 people with a little less than half being civilians), the words were used a combined total of 180 times. The same words were used a combined total of 5 times when referring the death toll of Palestinians by the Israeli military (currently 30,000+ people with around 90% being civilians). To people who keep up with media bias, it isn't a surprise to learn that some of the biggest outlets in the US are heavily biased towards Israel, but it may be news to someone reading this.
According to Wikipedia the death toll on Oct 7th was 1,139 with 815 being civillians so that over 66% not less than 50% like you said and also 251 hostages taken. Also hamas the governing body of palestine has said they use human shields and that despite all the tunnels they built to protect hamas they didn't build bomb shelters that civillians could use, and have ordered citizens to stay in their houses when the idf has warned them of strikes. Also I don't think that's a fair point because while it makes the hamas attack sound more violent it kinda was people breaking in houses killing families with aks and rocketing civillian structures and committing other horrible things , compared to Israel struck a hospital, school, or refugee camp. I see alot of the ladder in the news alot and it clearly isn't to make Israel look good.
@@dobber43 My info may have been out of date, so that puts the ratio of civilian to military deaths at 2:1. There is another factor though that rarely gets mentioned when referring to Israeli civilian deaths from Oct. 7th. Every Israeli citizen has to serve in the IDF in their adulthood, with women expected to serve 2 years and men expected to serve just short of 3 years at minimum. The gun laws are stricter there than in the US, but it's more common for the citizens that live near the Gaza border to be armed. I think that a capable, trained IDF soldier turned citizen should not be compared to the Israeli children and elderly who are incapable of self defense. On the other hand the vast majority of Palestinian adults are not part of any military, but the Israeli state officially classifies any male over the age of 18 as a "military target". This is how they claim the civilian death toll in Gaza is only in the 60%-70% range, and not the internationally agreed upon percentage in the 90% range. Regardless of all of this, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians has only been ramped up in recent months. The numbers of expected deaths due to being shot or blown up, crushed under rubble, lack of medical care, starvation, etc. is estimated to be around 186,000 according to a study by The Lancet released around a month ago. This will be remembered as one of the darkest time periods in modern history when all of this is over.
The British guy does have a name. It's John Bull.
Also a fun name to know, the Gish Gallop was named after one specific lying, money hungry fundamentalist creationist Christian, Duane Gish. He specifically focused on asking blithe, simple-seeming scientific questions that required nuance, ten research papers, and a degree to answer. And demanded all the answers in minutes and exhaustively so if anything was missed he could proclaim victory.
he wasnt a fundamentalist christian if he was money hungry. the bible forbids loving money. please remove the christian part as one stupid pos “christian” doesnt represent the other 2.5 billion christians❤
3:20 a big lie is more like a lie that is simple to say but is so complex to refute from so many angles, offense against it is uncoordinated and scattered
I'm intrigued by Paint Explainer's definition of "Gish Gallop." I'd always understood the technique to work more like the Firehose of Falsehood: overloading the opponent with dubious claims they simply don't have time to respond to, thus making the unaddressed claims seem more factual ("He didn't respond to X, so it must be true" rather than the reality of "He didn't respond to X because he was so busy with A-W")
I think the firehose one is more framed from the medias position. It’s just about having those claims all floating around about someone to the point where someone would say “there’s no way all of this stuff they’re saying is false some of these have got to be true”
My understanding of accidentally using this technique without realising it existed is that the idea is to overwhelm the other party with so many questions that are considered fairly simple that there response cant be properly coordinated (you can also advance this to ask questions were the answers will appear contradictory to the answers of previous questions) , this obviously leads to the other parties response being full of inaccuracies and poor wording which allows you to then pick apart their response thus destroying their credibility in the eyes of other people while also improving the perception that you are credible. At this point the more the person try’s to argue back the deeper hole they create for themselves however when they do concede defeat it also digs them a deeper hole. Effectively its a trap thats easy to fall into and impossible to escape once your caught in it, i found it a very effective technique when i was in school and teachers would attempt to make an example of me.
Propaganda can be very effective. It can change even an entire societies view on something.
22:25 "70% of statitics are pulled out of ya but" loooooool XD
The British guy at 7:30 is John Bull he is used as t like the male version of Britannia who represents the nation personified. In WW2 the more common face was Lord Kitchener with his "Your country needs you" posters (basically our version of Uncle Sam's we want you)
We all know a perfect modern example of a politian that uses his a cult of personality 😂
Mr Terry are you going to watch the Greek Philosophers in 5 Minutes Video that The Painted Explainer also had done you kinda missed that one would love your Academic insight on that video
But I also agree with the idea that if you only focus on one party's guilt, you exonerate the others.
How do you express that WITHOUT it being labeled whataboutism?
What's the difference between that and just calling out hypocrisy?
i think pointing out hypocrisy doesn't have to use whataboutism, for example, you could use sarcasm, when a convicted thief says that stealing are bad, you could use sarcasm like "that's rich coming from you", or "wow, you have such a good moral".
The thing is that whataboutism is a technique of deliberately avoiding the debate.
Imo, it isn't fallacious if the initial argument is inherently used as comparison, let's say the topic is who should be elected and oparty X says the party Y is bad because they did something bad, saying they are better alternative, while party X also does the same thing. In that case party X argument is fallacious, because it involves comparison but only examines one side and just implies the other side is better.
Or, from recent and controversial example of Israel-Palestine/Hamas war:
"What Hamas is doing is bad.... that's why you should support Israel (refuses to look at what Israel is doing as well)
"What Israel is doing is bad... that's why you should support Palestine" (again, refuses to look what Palestine side is doing)
In both cases whataboutism would be fallacious IF the argument wasn't the attempt to show one side as better than the other. Comparison REQUIRES to look at all compared things to asses which one is better.
19:20 Agreed, context IS important but especially politicians often use this if they have said something stupid/horrible that "it was taken out of context" Like one time we had a big conversation about how much control employers should have to their employees private lives, for example e-mails. This was especially in relation to a certain law which was in the procedings at the time, which if passed would greatly increase employers rights and diminish employees rights. Well, there was this not-so-bright politician who was very strong proponent of said pending law said that "Employer should have even the right to strip their employee naked, if neccessary" Well, needless to say papers had a field with this but the politician in question and some experts trying play spin doctors tried to dampen the comment by saying that "it was taken out of context"
So yeah, sometimes "taken out of context" can be used as a very poor defence tactics when you realize you have shot yaself in the leg (or have arrow in the knee), but it rarely works as people can see your BS. Otherwise usually religions or strong ideologies use this as some intrepretation is "taken out of context" even if it is really a question of different POV...
When i was teaching in a prison, I liked to use the improper punctuation (the thing he talked about in the Half-Truths section) when explaining to students why they really should be careful cussing in class. There is a big difference between a grown-@$$ man and what happens when you move that hyphen a word over...
Cult of Personality, best explained by In Living Color. Very thought provoking song
CM PUNK!!!!
The UK WW1 Poster. There is a famous one which i think either pre dates or post dates the US WW1 one. It was a image of UK Lord Kitchener (unusual name i know) which has his image and saying "WANTS YOU".
There is a bit of a Mandela affect though where people think it says "Your country needs you" which admittedly sounds a lot more inspiring and snazzy but i believe was never done in circulation.
Greetings from the UK 🇬🇧
So a gish gallop isn't just about sounding smart, there's a specific tactic to it. The idea is you make dozens of false claims in a short presentation, each of which, the other guy could spend an hour unpacking why it's wrong. The idea is, he wastes all his time and the audience's patience debunking one claim, leaving the rest on the table unaddressed. His audience doesn't remember the long explanation why that point is wrong, they remember all the short quippy claims that the other guy never even talked about. Must be because he knew it was right.
Glad to see this going into an election year, more conscious people are the harder they are to trick.
the best scapegoaters are 11 year old kids in FPS games
facts
“it was lag guys i swear”
“come on teammates, where were you?”
“its cause of the ni-
Some of my family members, who were my role models when growing up, have become active propaganda consumers. It really hurts to see them falling for childish fallacies
Gaslighting is highly effective we just learned it in the video just now they explain it.
Name me a minority or vice that _hasn't_ been scapegoated, I think it'd be quicker.
Most of the worst acts in human history boil down to "they got in a rich person's way."
John Bull is the symbolic personification of England.
“Spain sunk the Maine” and “Iraq has WMDs” probably take the top 2.
In school, we were taught the sing-songy rhyme for blaming the Maine on Spain. That way we'd "remember it for the test".
They missed the "dead cat" strategy. That is to say something shocking to distract from something more consequential. (Attributed to Boris Johnson's political strategist Lynton Crosby).
In British politics I have also seen phony protestors using glitter (easy to clean off) instead of coloured dust, in mockery of the just stop oil protestors. (Used at former chancellor George Osborne's wedding with smiles all around. Then used on Labour leader Kier Starmer's conference speach, with a prepared rebuttal.) Somebody dared to throw glitter at the bride and groom on their wedding day and it was seen as shocking!
Red herring?
1) Cult of personality: I thought of Stalin instantly as the first example. How the famous picture of young Stalin was altered or his paintings or photographs included happy laughing children and beautiful nature.
2) Scapegoats: Witch trials, supposed witches were blamed for anything from unrequited love, diseases, famine to making deals with the devil and cursing people with misfortune.
And currently, China, Africa and India for climate change; why us in [European or North American nation] have to do anything when China and India are the "biggest" polluters or African countries are "overpopulating" the world.
‘overpopulating the world’ you sound like a nazi here, you can’t blame people for being born
I thought of the song which ironically mentions Stalin to lol
7:30 the British man’s name is John Bull, and is essentially the British equivalent of Uncle Sam, as he too is a fictional personification.
Always interesting and important to note how many progranda techniques are really all just logical fallacies.
Please think about doing the new PragerU "Was Hitler Right-Wing?" video. The video is making the case that Hitler's "National Socialism" is actually "Socialist", and therefore Hitler was not "Right-Wing". Please provide the much needed context to this video.
The far right & far left are pretty much the same as in hyper authoritarianism-both sides think thier brand is the better one but we've seen how they've both played out with Hitler/Mussollini being more right wing authoritarian while Stalin/Lenin were left wing authoritarian. Disgust was probably the main driving force & foundation of both as well
"Did he just skip Gaslighting or am I tripping?" No, you're tripping. Gaslighting isn't even up there, silly. What, can't you read? Everyone can see Gaslighting isn't there, so why don't you just stop talking about it. Gaslighting isn't even a word. (/s just in case, lol)
How is working 185 days out of the year going?
NGL, when they had the silhouette of a person wearing a cape for 'cult of personality', my first thought wasn't even real-world individuals. I was immediately thinking, "Is HE lore from StarvHarv a cult of personality?"
Edit: I wondered if them skipping gaslighting was going to connect to a later example of gaslighting by using the "I didn't skip it" argument to showcase how gaslighting works.
Kirk Cameron and the left behind franchise. Or, just Kirk Cameron.
Whataboutism isn't it's own category. There is validity to "what about". "Why are you telling me to do X when you don't do X" is a valid criticism of an argument. If you don't follow your own advice, it often means the advise is flawed, or the advice has a cost to it that you aren't stating which you aren't willing to state. To use the (bad) example he gave there - if someone overweight tells you to exercise and doesn't exercise themselves it could be that 1. It doesn't work (this is partially true - exercise without a reasonable diet doesn't work). 2. It has a cost they aren't willing to pay that is worth acknowledging (starting exercise is difficult because your body releases fatigue chemicals to discourage use of resources after it has become accustomed to not using them, and maintaining a routine is difficult with a schedule). Or 3. They have specific circumstances that may not apply to you but that circumstance is worth knowing (in my case, I have arthritis and inflamation in two different parts of my foot that make me dangerously lose balance if I overdo walking, so I could tell you to walk for exercise but I can't do so myself). These are all things that can come of interrogating the situation in the form of "what about". We shouldn't automatically dismiss any "what about". Where it becomes a problem is when it's part of another technique. "You tay this candidate is bad because X but what about this past President who did X too?" is where this entered the public conscience in 2016. And at face value it IS valid - if you don't think X is acceptable now, why was it acceptable 4 years ago needs answering to ensure X is not just an unstated assumption. Politics are notorious for criticisms being used for short term mudslinging while not actually being distinguishing factors between the candidates. What made "whataboutism" into a problem was that it was being used as a method of transferrence. In 2016 when it was so prominent, it was transferring the problems of Obama onto Clinton by the irrelevant association of being the same party and serving under his administration.
Like a lot of these, you need to be aware of the possibility the other person is trying to deceive you with the method, but that doesn't mean you dismiss them out of hand. You need to make sure the question isn't valid before you dismiss them. And the quickest way to do that is to answer them honestly. If they don't respond in good faith, then you dismiss them.
My favorite out of context quote is Ronald Reagan, who said, "I'm from the government, and im here to help." Most people drop that the full quote is, "The 9 most terrifying words in the english language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
3:10 ibao and ElXocas
I thought “proper gander” was just what you call a Londoner taking a good look at something.
Biggest propaganda was napoleons height. Poor man was average height
gaslighting is not skipped, what are you talking about?
4:15 Cognitive dissonace is rather somethig that happens if the core fo your worldview shatters and you have to construct a new one like for example from christian to atheist. However, people will try to do and find ANYTHING to keep their status quo worldview. i.e. not having to ever face cognitive dissonance...
Man, he really nailed gaslighting.
What are you talking about Terry, they covered gaslighting. You weren't paying attention.
:P
Scapegoating = Jerry Jones with the Cowboys. He's king at using Scapegoating so he doesn't have to look in the mirror
Cult of personality can be anyone, really. Obviously dictators often do this (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Politicians in democracies do this as well, building an intensely loyal following (e.g. Modi, Trum).
However, not all CoPs are started by the leader. Some are postumous as well. For example, JFK has this venerable, heroic image despite being a very flawed leader.
Half truth or perhaps another seems really common in advertising. Terms like “a dollar a month” “only x per y” etc. Instead of being totally up front and saying the actual full price one pays at a time. Ya technically it’s only whatever small amount per month or whatever. Except on checkout it’s like 100.00+. I hate that crap, just tell me the full pay now number.
Demonize the enemy and guilt by association are so prevalent. For example many Harry potter youtube channels or people buying or streaming the games being attacked n slandered just cause of JKs personal opinions, regardless of the beliefs and opinions of the youtuber and streamer etc who is a fan of the franchise / universe. There’s loads of actors n such I hate cause of their personal opinions but I still enjoy the films and series they perform in. Even if the creator is a piece of crap, it doesn’t mean the creation is bad. Or that it’s wrong to enjoy it.
The got milk ads campaign
oh so THATS what i've been doing wrong
Dope!
The usa has used every single one of these and still uses most of these
Yeah especially when geroge Bush used the appeal to fear
When he lied about WMDS and Iraqs connections to 9/11
Oh, look, it's everything the news in the US has been doing in the last 10 years.
When i think of cult of personality i think Of Stalin
every political campaign ever
20:38 id say calling people racists, transphobic, homophobic and others have lost more of there meanings than woke did
All 4 of them have in equal amounts. Woke used to be this big scary thing that everyone was scared of. “The woke mob is coming to indoctrinate your children!” And everyone panicked. Now it’s the equivalent of commie in Cold War USA.
Copied vid verbatim from another channel including the skipped gaslighting entry. Not cool.
It’s an interesting video.
I see aspects of some of these on both sides of our political spectrum, but I see the vast majority applied by the democrat party.
I didn’t notice that before. Thank you.
the best scapegoaters i've seen are pseudotherapists who blame every single issue of the "patient" in their parents
about the biggest cults of personality- probably Stalin